|
400
<br />Renuel Myers, 1930 Alameda de las Pulgas, spoke about Emeryville revoking their sales tax and San
<br />Francisco being -forced to raise their sales tax rate to 12%. The City Manager replied to the
<br />Emeryville situation and stated that Western Electric Company moved their business to San Leandro
<br />and thus deprived Emeryville of approximately $$300,000. San Leandro had the sales tax as well as
<br />Emeryville so that wasn't the reason why the company moved.
<br />Councilman Stout again spoke in regard to the sales tax. He spoke about the possibility of the city
<br />adopting an ordinance which in effect would state that in the event that this sales tax passes and
<br />the other cities in the area do not go along with the sales tax and the County does not adopt a
<br />uniform sales tax then the Council place the matter on before the people in 1958.
<br />Councilman Granger, in his belief that this is for the best interest of the City of Redwood City and
<br />based on the recommendation of the Department Heads and the City Manager, offered the introduction
<br />of the ordinance imposing a license tax for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at
<br />retail, providing for permits to retailers, providing for the collecting and paying of such tax, and
<br />I
<br />prescribing penalties for violations of the provisions. This was seconded by Councilman Weymouth.
<br />Councilman Weiss read the following prepared statement:
<br />Whenever the question of taxation or sources of revenue are the subject of discussion,
<br />I invariably am reminded of the thoughts expressed by Emund Burke, the great English
<br />Orator and Statesman, and I deem it proper to quote him on this occasion, to wit; "Taxing
<br />is an easy business - Any projector can contrive new impositions; andy bungler can add
<br />to the old; but is it altogether wise to have no other bounds to you impositions than
<br />.the patience of those who are to bear them?"
<br />In approaching and evaluating the advisability and necessity of the Sales and Use
<br />Tax, I have been and am guided by those sage words.
<br />May be erroneously, but at least in all honesty and sincerity, I have come to believe
<br />in the equity of the Sales and Use Tax. Yet, in approaching its imposition I wanted at
<br />all times to be certain that I have weighed allpossible aspects and could justify its
<br />propriety and necessity. At the same time I wanted to be certain that we have done
<br />our utmost to provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the imposition of the Sales and 71
<br />Use Tax does not be come just another tax on top of all the other taxes that our people
<br />are already burndened with. Nor did I whish to be a party to any action that would
<br />permit it becoming just another source, of revenue. I felt that it must definitely be an
<br />in lieu tax in so far as it is humanly possible to make it so.. I am happy to say that the
<br />majority, if not all, of the council has acquiesced to that philosopby.
<br />When the council began its studies of the advisability of the imposition of a sales
<br />qnd use tax and more specifically at out meeting of September 24, and October 1, 1956, I
<br />definitely urged the council to provide adequate safeguards in the allocation of revenues
<br />from the proposed sales and use tax; and I spelled out in fairly clear language my
<br />thinking on the matter.
<br />-
<br />Further, at said meeting of September 24, 1956, when the resolution of intention
<br />I
<br />on the question'of the imposition of sales and use tax was presented and adopted, I
<br />stated: 11 . . ., as I see it, we must be candid and fair to our constituents - We must
<br />explore our foreseeable requirements, that is the long range program - both from an
<br />operational, capital outly or expansion standpoint, as well as taking into consideration
<br />essential, but postponed, maintenance projects; we must determine priorities, costs,
<br />means of financing, and whether or not they can be adequately provided for under existing
<br />revenues; We must explore, and if facts warrant, admit, that for all practical purposes
<br />some of this additional revenue is essential and necessary to meet current requirments;
<br />that the imposition is warranted as the only means by which adequate funds can be
<br />provided for all purposes and yet permit and provide definete relief to the small home
<br />owner and other property owners who are already bearing too heavy a burden in property
<br />taxes.n
<br />r
<br />i
<br />On many occasions I have talked long range planning and programming, though such
<br />r,
<br />plans programs are still nebulous, I can from personal observation set forth some very
<br />pertinent items that this city must face and meet, eith now or in the very, very near
<br />future, and all of them will cost money, they are the accumulations of many years delay,
<br />years prior to my becoming a member of this body. There is no question that the longer
<br />wer.continue to delay them the more costly their accompishment;, their continued delay
<br />will tend to blight the community more and more, so it is im erative that we take action
<br />foil
<br />at the earliest possible moment. To illustrate I call attention the following more or
<br />less urgently needed projects., some recurring> others of a ca,)ital nature;
<br />Expansion of Sewage Disposal Plant and Facilities $$ 1,250,000
<br />Additional Funds for Water Reservoir (ivy estimate) 250.9000
<br />New Fire Station and Equipment . . . . . . . . . 2503,000
<br />Stulsaft Park & Other Recreational Developments . 225,000
<br />Railroad Crossing Safety Devices, etc. . . . . . 75,000
<br />Street Realignments, Widening, Bridges, etc. 7503000
<br />City Hall Renovation, etc. . . . . . . . . 20,000
<br />Badly needed street maintenance . .. . . . 150,000
<br />Planning Staff (Recurring annually) . . . . . . . 20,000
<br />Civilian Defense (Recurring Annually) . . . . . . . 10,000
<br />
|